"It could divide Arizona in ways we cannot even imagine," said Brewer, who said she tuned out public pressure and made the decision she felt was right.

Attention now turns to the following states:

Georgia

The Preservation of Religious Freedom Act has been introduced into Georgia's legislature, and it is similar to the one vetoed in Arizona.

The measure, which is moving through the state House of Representatives, allows a private company to ignore state law that "directly or indirectly constrains, inhibits, curtails or denies" a person's religious beliefs.

An almost identical bill has been introduced in the state Senate.

Much like the Arizona measure, neither Georgia's House nor Senate bills specifically spell out gays or lesbians as the target of the bill.

Idaho

There are two bills being considered. HB 426 would protect people making decisions out of religious convictions -- including denying service to someone. HB 427 gives people protection against legal claims made against them in cases involving religious convictions.

If passed into law, the first bill probably would be vulnerable to constitutional legal challenges. Both bills could cause many disruptions to everyday life in the state, a state attorney general said in an article in the The Spokesman Review.

HB 427 has been sent back to committee.

Mississippi

A bill is being considered to legally protect people against being compelled to take any action against their religion. SB 2681 does not explicitly mention gays, lesbians or same-sex marriage. It has passed the Senate and was referred to House, where it is in a judiciary committee.

Missouri

A bill that requires the government to show a compelling interest in any attempt to restrict a person's right to practice religion was introduced this week by Republican state Sen. Wayne Wallingford.

SB 916 provides for additional civil protections to the state's existing "Religious Freedom Restoration Act," according to the senator.

But critics of the law say it's a way to discriminate against gays.

Ohio

The House introduced HB 376 in December. It also does not single out same-sex relations for discrimination but gives legal protection to individuals acting or making decisions out of religious conviction. It's currently in judiciary committee. Critics say it's aimed at discrimination against same-sex couples, knoxnews.com reported.

Oregon

The conservative Oregon Family Council is sponsoring a ballot measure -- the "Protect Religious Freedoms Initiative" -- that would allow private businesses to deny services that would support same-sex marriage.

The group, which previously supported the effort to ban same-sex marriage in the state, is pushing to get the measure on the November ballot.

South Dakota

Conservative senators introduced one bill that would allow businesses or people to deny "certain wedding services or goods due to the free exercise of religion." But its main sponsor withdrew it.

But there's a second one protecting "speech pertaining to views on sexual orientation." It has been deferred to a late legislative day.

There are also states where proposed bills have already hit a legislative wall:

Colorado

A bill that would have allowed people to defend against discrimination allegations on the basis of religious convictions was killed in committee, The Denver Post reported.

Kansas

State representatives introduced a bill in January that would have explicitly permitted religious business people and government workers to refuse serving same-sex couples. It passed the House, with a vote of 72 to 49, but failed in the Republican-dominated Senate.

Maine

A conservative senator introduced a religious freedom bill that would have protected people making decisions out of religious convictions that other legislators felt interfered with other people's civil rights. The state Senate and House both voted it down, the Bangor Daily News reported.

Tennessee

Tennessee legislators introduced a bill in early February that proponents said would protect businesses if they refused services to gays and lesbians. Critics called it the "Turn the Gays Away" bill.

The measure has been withdrawn from committee, CNN affiliate WSMV reported.

Utah

Conservative state Sen. Stuart Reid introduced a bill similar to the Arizona bill that was vetoed, but it has since been shelved, The Salt Lake Tribune reported.

No big surprise that a lot of news outlets used "anti-gay" to describe the bill instead of "exercise of religion". The bill seems to stipulate that the person(s) claiming "exercise of religion" would have to prove themselves before a court so what's the problem? Once again, the very ones always decrying intolerance are the ones most guilty of it.

OVERVIEW
HB 2153 revises the definition of exercise of religion and person and extends the prohibition on substantially burdening a person’s exercise of religion to applications of the law by nongovernmental persons.

HISTORY
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. The latter portion of the provision is known as the Free Exercise Clause. In 1990, Congress passed the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA), which instructed courts to apply strict scrutiny when government substantially burdens a person’s exercise of religion, even if the burden results from a law of general applicability. However, the United States Supreme Court has since held that the federal RFRA may not be extended to the states and local governments (City of Boerne v. Flores, 521 U.S. 507 (1997)).

In response to City of Boerne v. Flores, Arizona enacted state-level protection from the government substantially burdening the free exercise of religion using the strict scrutiny compelling interest test (Laws 1999, Chapter 332). Accordingly, government may substantially burden a person’s exercise of religion only if it demonstrates that application of the burden to the person is both in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest and the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest (A.R.S. § 41-1493.01). Exercise of religion is defined as the ability to act or refusal to act in a manner substantially motivated by a religious belief, whether or not the exercise is compulsory or central to a larger system of religious belief (A.R.S. § 41-1493).

PROVISIONS
• Expands the definition of exercise of religion by including the practice and observance of religion.

• Expands the definition of person to include any individual, association, partnership, corporation, church, or other business entity.

• Modifies, from government to state action, the prohibition on burdening a person’s exercise of religion, except under certain circumstances.

• Clarifies that the government or a nongovernmental person enforcing state action must demonstrate that the application of the burden to the person’s exercise of religion is in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest and is the least restrictive means of furthering the compelling governmental interest.

• Maintains that a person whose religious exercise is burdened in violation of this Act may assert that violation as a claim or defense in a judicial proceeding and specifies that this applies regardless of whether the government is a party to the proceeding.

• Stipulates that a person that asserts a violation of this Act must establish the following:
 The person’s action or refusal to act is motivated by a religious belief;
 The person’s religious belief is sincerely held; and
 The state action substantially burdens the exercise of the person’s religious beliefs.

• Allows a person asserting a claim or defense in a judicial proceeding, whose religious exercise is burdened, to receive injunctive and declaratory relief.

• Prescribes the definition of state action to include government action and the application of any law by a nongovernmental person and specifies that the requirements in statute relating to professional or occupational licenses and appointments to government offices are not included in the definition of state action.

...Republican lawmakers in Arizona decided to pursue SB 1062 after a court in neighboring New Mexico last year decided that a photographer who refused to document a same-sex couple’s commitment ceremony had violated New Mexico’s public accommodations laws.

...The Arizona lawmakers saw the New Mexico case as a call to action to propose Arizona’s own expanded version of a Religious Freedom Restoration Act, also known as RFRA. If the acronym RFRA seems familiar, it is at the heart of two high-profile cases in front of the Supreme Court in March about the contraception mandate and the Affordable Care Act (also known as Obamacare).

And here's a link to an article talking about the New Mexico case mentioned above. I quoted the very end of the article (link for full article):

The court agreed, to a point. “If Elane Photography took photographs on its own time and sold them at a gallery,” it said, then it could say what it liked, but a business open to the public must take all comers.

“The Huguenins are not trying to prohibit anyone from marrying,” he wrote. “They only want to be left alone to conduct their photography business in a manner consistent with their moral convictions.” Instead, they “are compelled by law to compromise the very religious beliefs that inspire their lives.”

“Though the rule of law requires it,” Justice Bosson wrote, “the result is sobering.”

Owners of private businesses should have the right to refuse service to anyone for any reason at any time. The government should have no say in that at all.

Calling the protection of religious liberties "anti-gay" is like calling Liberalism "anti-freedom". Except in the case of Liberalism it's actually true.

that would be fun!!!!! the discrimination would be a beautiful thing to watch!

all in all, i don't see an issue with this ... i think if the bills state more that "religious institutes" have a right to express religious freedom, that is one thing, but businesses should be left out of the bill imo

that would be fun!!!!! the discrimination would be a beautiful thing to watch!

all in all, i don't see an issue with this ... i think if the bills state more that "religious institutes" have a right to express religious freedom, that is one thing, but businesses should be left out of the bill imo

So, you assume that all Americans are racist bigots and just looking for any excuse to discriminate against somebody? That's pretty narrow-minded of you and insulting to anyone who is an American.

Right now it's the militant Gay Rights activists that are being the most intolerant and discriminatory in this situation. They are the ones that are saying that you are only allowed to have an opinion that they personally agree with and if you disagree with them, then you should be treated like a criminal. Those are not the values that America was founded on. They may be the values that Canada was founded on, though, I don't really know anything about your country.

Ideally in America, privately owned businesses should be able to enjoy all of the rights and freedoms of private citizens, since it is private citizens who start up and run those privately owned businesses. The government has no right to force those citizens to violate their own conscience just because their views might be unpopular. If a business owner is seen as discriminating against somebody and people in that area want to peacefully protest or boycott that business, that's completely within their rights as private citizens. But the government should never step in and threaten somebody just because they don't want to serve a specific customer. Basically, it's none of the government's business.

This notion that you need to be a religious organization to operate based on religious principles is absolute stupidity and is not one of the principles that America was founded upon.

So, you assume that all Americans are racist bigots and just looking for any excuse to discriminate against somebody? That's pretty narrow-minded of you and insulting to anyone who is an American.
Right now it's the militant Gay Rights activists that are being the most intolerant and discriminatory in this situation. They are the ones that are saying that you are only allowed to have an opinion that they personally agree with and if you disagree with them, then you should be treated like a criminal. Those are not the values that America was founded on. They may be the values that Canada was founded on, though, I don't really know anything about your country.

Ideally in America, privately owned businesses should be able to enjoy all of the rights and freedoms of private citizens, since it is private citizens who start up and run those privately owned businesses. The government has no right to force those citizens to violate their own conscience just because their views might be unpopular. If a business owner is seen as discriminating against somebody and people in that area want to peacefully protest or boycott that business, that's completely within their rights as private citizens. But the government should never step in and threaten somebody just because they don't want to serve a specific customer. Basically, it's none of the government's business.

This notion that you need to be a religious organization to operate based on religious principles is absolute stupidity and is not one of the principles that America was founded upon.

the games you play on here are hilarious .. really .. when did i say that all amercans are bigots??? and if you don't think if business owners had the right to refuse businness to anyone for any reason there wouldn't be a rise in "discrimination" claims? if you don't think there would be, than you have either lived a sheltered life (but, you were in the military and have been to many countries ..lol, i know, i know) or are just blind .. most places would have a rise in discrimination if their bigotry was free to run wild ...

and you keep talking about the principles the country was founded on and the founding fathers .. i honestly think you deify them more than the bible itself.. like what they said is infallible ... times change and countries adapt to these changes ... i can understand your stance on the bible being absolute truth, but the US constitution is not a document without fault .. it was put together by people who were not perfect

so now you can reply and say how my post is so stupid, and i don't know what im talking about ..

Businesses in America already have the right to refuse service to anyone for any reason. The Gay Rights movement simply wants to take away that right.

They're basically trying take away people's freedom to disagree with them and their lifestyle choices. The Gay Rights movement is not interested in advancing freedom, it's only interested in destroying it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by rearnakedchoke

and you keep talking about the principles the country was founded on and the founding fathers .. times change and countries adapt to these changes ...

You're obviously approaching this debate from a progressive mindset and that's where we differ; so we're probably never going to see eye to eye on these issues.

Quote:

Originally Posted by rearnakedchoke

(but, you were in the military and have been to many countries ..lol, i know, i know)

I've seen enough outside of the US to know that there are many other countries that are much more intolerant towards diversity than America is; but it's only America that seems to get criticized for being intolerant.

Probably because America usually works out its civil rights issues publicly for the whole world to see; so we make ourselves an easy target. It's like being in a room full of alcoholics, but only one guy is willing to admit that he has a problem with alcohol and so he gets constantly criticized by the other alcoholics, even though they all have the exact same drinking problem.

Probably because America usually works out its civil rights issues publicly for the whole world to see; so we make ourselves an easy target. It's like being in a room full of alcoholics, but only one guy is willing to admit that he has a problem with alcohol and so he gets constantly criticized by the other alcoholics, even though they all have the exact same drinking problem.

You only have yourselves to blame for that one.

If I could write a book called "Sins of America" this would be the preface. Try to understand...I am not "anti-american" but I AM Anti the Federal Union...because as far as im concerned, that is NOT what America is supposed to be. Hopefully, some of you will aggree with me on that one. George Washington was under the Crown for a long time, and his thoughts on the ideal of America, and the American Constitution pretty much went out of the window with Abraham Lincoln...as the Union gets larger, its corruption filters down into some major private companies, because of a mutual capitalistic benefit, which is now completely without the basis in the CHRISTIAN work ethic. Combined, they have led America, during its days as a Super-power Circa 1945-2020 estimated end to have made so most grave errors. I want to distinguish here between Americans as the Populas of people...and America as a Big Government that has forced these sins upon its own people by virtue of ignoring the good, for the gains of corruption. However, it also appears to me that many americans outside of the political system have grown up in a Lincolnian world, and need to be educated about how the Government they believe is essentially Holy...is most definately not, and thus I would write it to the American people and not to the Federal Government, in the hope that exposing what the Government, and by default, the people who believe in that Government have become, they may see it for what it is, and be motivated to change their views. I also place the mantle of International Law above Constitutional law, since it was primarily created by the Americans as a law to govern inter-state discourse outside of the Union. Analysis of how some of Americas issues have been caused by following the Constitution AGAINST international law are tricky subjects, and I have not gone into detail...but where these two do collide I usually provide some method of absolution via detailed discussion (but that wouldnt be in a preface now would it )

Preface, a word to the American Populas who holds as sacred the Federal Government of the United States of the American Republics, since the conclusion of the American Civil War, and focussing on the years in which Continental America has been classified as a Super-Power

America is the powerhouse that she is because she claimed neutrality until directly threatened during the second world war. In which, she aided her allied forces who lost a hell of a lot more then she did...and then had the nerve to ask them to financially recompense her with interest!

Try to understand that all the other major world powers, except, maybe you could argue the Russians (but lets be honnest...it was only the elite few in Russia) had ANYTHING left.

Because your country REFUSED to fight for Freedom and Tollerance, because your country REFUSED to do the correct thing, Because your country REFUSED to help its friends, the rest of the world suffered.

England basically lost its entire Empire due to the inaction of America...and before you blame your President...consider...it wasnt the President who was against Action...it was your Congress...the SAME institution that will politically point score against itself at the expense of many of its workers, as prooved when it shuts down, like it did last Fall.

The difference between America and the rest of the intollerant world is that generally, we do not pretend to be something that we are not. Our systems are flawed and we know it...but the United States believes in itself far, far too much

Do you realize that had the Americans actually joined in the War when Hitler began marching across Europe, potentially the War could have been over before the main damage to England and France was done...Imagine...would you ever forgive us if we chose to stay silent whilst Chicago or New York were completely, and I dont just mean a single building, like the World Trade Centre...I mean the whole, whole of Manhatten, and the surrounding suberbs were smushed beyond recognition in a SIXTY DAY continuous air bombardment...would the Americans ever forgive us?? What about the Jews...? Have you considered the fact that had the United States joined the campaign earlier millions might have been saved from the concentration camps...because if the end of the war shows anything...it is that once the Americans finally decided to bother helping the rest of the world, it was over quickly and decisively...imagine a world where some of these concentration camps hadnt even finished being built by the time the lands were under American/British/Russian rule.

Who is responsible for the European Union being headed by Germany...? Ask yourself how the two time loooser of the two biggest wars last century is leading Europe by the 1980s....you might not be suprised to discover...its due to the Americans once again...the reason Germany is so rich is because it was rebuilt and reinvested in the most by the Americans after the war...Angela Merkel runs a larger Germanic Utopia in practise then Hitler dreamed in principle...and we havent marked the Centenary of Adolfs attempt yet.

Finally...consider the news of the last decade...the early point, dominated by a War which was unsanctioned, arguably did as much harm as good, and distroyed the foundation of the institution that America set up to stop any country acting like the Nazi Regieme...that is to say, invasion because they want to invade. America did that aswell...or we could perhaps consider what occured in the later part of the decade...where because America doesnt keep an eye on her own corrupt capitalistic citizens...you had an American Bank practically distroy the banking system of the entire western world in less then a week...and still half the americans, were saying to hell with the rest of the world, stop a Government bail out.

You wonder why you've been a super-power for less then a century and you're about to be eclipsed by the Orient...in a few years time you wont be airing your laundry so much because you wont be in the position you are now in. Your own President cant even manage to stick to the constitution...and still he gets ellected for a second term in office...why? coz he can speak...that is all he can do...that is how far you have fallen from the 1770s

There is only one country who has used weapons of mass destruction against another country, and in so doing, destroyed two entire cities full of civilians (so we're told at a lesser cost then the value of life for any other way of beating Japan...but I'm not sure the resident of Hiroshima would take any comfort in that)

So before you get all self righteous and chant the usual blah about America being sooo much better then everyone else...consider swallowing the pomposity of all your patriotic pride, and admitting that as far as the last 70 years goes...Americas record is as tarnished as almost anywhere else on the planet (except maybe Cambodia) and consider that the reason you are in full view of the world, is because your country sat on her hands until she was the only one left...the way you became a super-power is the best testimony for how your country has abandoned its constitution, and ceased to anything like the Washingtonian Vision of the 1770s...its a good job he's not here now...he would probably be heart broken...and if you do have to blame one man, personally...blame President Lincoln...coz thats where your country effectively abandoned the constitution by prioritizing the Union ahead of it....Washington put Ethos ahead of Government...Lincoln put Government ahead of Ethos, what he did is missed by most Americans...its why they effectively class him as a Martyre, that, and no doubt the teachings of the Government who are eternally grateful to the man for effectively giving them free reign over you all.